562 posts
|
Horror
Jun 8, 2017 6:24:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by jadnoop on Jun 8, 2017 6:24:42 GMT
I thought after what happened In Manchester and London It was in really poor taste You said the same thing about Killology at the Royal Court. Presumably you're aware that these things were planned (and in the case of Killology began) long before the most recent attacks, so I'm unclear what you think should happen. Are you imagining that places like the Peacock/Royal Court cancel/postpone plays that have subject matter that might overlap with issues of violence?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 7, 2017 14:49:21 GMT
It's funny how -like most art forms- bad plays bring out the armchair experts convinced how their hindsight & opinions are objective truths they have always known.
If only your favourite theatre company/football team/musician had just listened to your wisdom, this disaster could have been prevented!
I'm sure there are many people at the NT kicking themselves that years of putting on plays gave them the audacity to attempt to put on a play without first consulting the fountain of all knowledge that is online messageboards!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 6, 2017 16:31:06 GMT
Thanks for all of the comments. It's reassuring to hear that it's not simply down to some secret fountain of theatre 'new play' knowledge that I don't know about yet I suppose part of the issue is that, despite them getting closer in price, getting theatre tickets always feels more loaded than getting cinema tickets. I feel worse sitting through a bad play than I do going to a bad film, but then missing a movie in the cinema, you feel like you can always see it on DVD, but theatre is so fleeting. It doesn't help that I also feel guilty returning tickets...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 6, 2017 14:28:41 GMT
(This is a thread about a discussion I'd like to bring up about new plays generally, rather than a specific play, so I'm not sure if this is the right place, or if it should be in the 'General Chat' thread. If so, apologies and I can delete/try to move it).
I'm probably more of a casual theatre-goer than most of the posters here, but since moving back to London and having a little more disposable income I've been attending plays more regularly, and an issue has arisen that I thought might make interesting discussion, and provide useful for less knowledgeable theatre-goers here like me.
I'm enjoying attending new plays. Two of those I've enjoyed/am looking forward to most this year are new ones; The Ferryman and Mosquitoes. However, on deciding on booking tickets, I've noticed something that's pretty frustrating about the way these plays can be presented to the public. The websites typically give very little information about the play itself, either in terms of some broad synopsis/story outline, or even what type of play it is (e.g. is it a thriller, a comedy, etc.). Indeed, most of the pages that accompany the 'book here' buttons seem to just include a couple of vague & non-commital sentences along with a single -typically abstract- image.
For example, Ferryman had "Northern Ireland, 1981. The Carney farmhouse is a hive of activity with preparations for the annual harvest. A day of hard work on the land and a traditional night of feasting and celebrations lie ahead. But this year they will be interrupted by a visitor.", while Mosquitoes has a little more "Alice is a scientist. She lives in Geneva. As the Large Hadron particle collider starts up in 2008, she is on the brink of the most exciting work of her life, searching for the Higgs Boson. Jenny is her sister. She lives in Luton. She spends a lot of time Googling. When tragedy throws them together, the collision threatens them all with chaos."
I appreciate that in both cases the lines are definitely enigmatic, but they don't really give much for a potential audience to make an informed decision on.
Presumably the practicalities of staging a new play makes it difficult to say much; the script is still being finalised, the sets/costumes/etc aren't in place making photos difficult and so on. Furthermore, in some media have gone too far in terms of giving away 'too much information', e.g. the trailers for some movies seem to spoil the entire thing. However, some of these websites seem so vague as to be irrelevant, requiring audiences to base their decisions largely on prior knowledge about the people involved rather than the play itself. Do you know the star? Do you know the playwright? And so on. While that might be fine for seasoned theatre-goers, it strikes me as quite opaque for newcomers who don't have much prior knowledge to go on. Compounding this is the fact that popular smaller plays might be sold out long before press night, giving casual theatre-goers little chance of getting tickets by the time they read about something in their paper.
Apologies for the waffling mini-rant, but I guess my thoughts/questions are, how do people decide on the plays here? Do you do a fair bit of reading around (playwrite interviews and so on)? Do you just bulk book and then return? Do you have access to secret knowledge outside of the general releases? Or perhaps it's not really such a big issue outside of a very small number of 'big names in a small theatre' type events? And day returns and schemes like the NT's Friday Rush gives people enough access anyway?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 6, 2017 13:23:05 GMT
Yes, I've just rung them up, and they said it could be anytime, but more pop up closer to the start of the run. They couldn't give me any info on any possible NT Live broadcast either - do they do them from the Dorfman? Seats available now by the way/ www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/tickets/9323
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 6, 2017 12:28:18 GMT
I'm still looking for tickets! Friday Rush difficult alas because of the travelling. It's definitely worth checking the site regularly, because in the past few weeks quite a few tickets have popped up. I would guess that I've seen about a dozen seats in total while I've been checking. They have been a mix of single seats as well as small groups, and the dates are obviously scattered, but if you're flexible or going alone then you might get lucky. Presumably returns will pop up more regularly as we get closer to the dates. One thing to bear in mind is that on the dates page www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/mosquitoes-whats-on-listing they don't update/remove the text at the top that says "Mosquitoes is now sold out" when returns pop up. I've generally found the easiest thing to do is to search for the phrase 'book now' which will come up with nothing if there aren't any tickets, or will take you straight to the specific day(s) if there are. Good luck. Hope you manage to get tickets somehow.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 4, 2017 10:38:18 GMT
Terrorism is only defeated by being more ruthless than the terrorists. What a statement upon which to build a positive and fair society. Yesterday's events were utterly attrocious, but while the immediate reaction might understandably be a mix of sadness and anger, it's pretty important that in moving forward we don't destroy the very values that put us morally above people who do stuff like this.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 2, 2017 9:01:17 GMT
Given what a long and complex play this seems to be, it seems odd that they would only cancel a Friday performance. I mean, how much can they hope to alter in a single day, while ensuring the actors, stagehands, etc are all up to speed by Saturdays performance? I would have assumed that cancelling Saturday, in order to have an entire weekend, would make the task more manageable.
I really hope they manage to salvage this. Despite the apparent general consensus that this is poor, I can't help but be excited: in the back of my mind, the mix of an old world setting on the cusp of modernity, and a language that attempts to combine copious amounts of swearing with a Shakespearean poetry, brings to mind David Milch's magnificent DEADWOOD. While that show certainly isn't for everyone (not least for the ridiculous amounts of swearing), in my opinion it's up there with THE WIRE in terms of modern television quality.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jun 1, 2017 9:42:23 GMT
Whoop. Some seats came up on a day I could do so managed to get some tickets. Sorry for this endless mini posts. Will stop now. Still some tickets left for anyone interested.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 31, 2017 22:08:24 GMT
It's difficult to tell whether the tweets about walk-outs represent a vocal minority, or a more significant proportion of the audience, but if the play is really dividing the audiences this much I feel a little sorry for the actors. I can't imagine working for months and months on something and then have to perform day after day to bored/bewildered faces and empty seats.
Having said that, I seem to recall a fair few interval walk-outs at Annie Baker's The Flick last year, and that was easily one of my favourite plays I saw that year, so I'm not sure that a hugely divisive play is necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 31, 2017 15:36:27 GMT
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 30, 2017 23:12:30 GMT
First preview was tonight. Anyone here attend? I'm not sure how much weight you can put on random tweets from a first night, but a few of them are fairly negative, or talk about interval walkouts. Not great, but if it's as bloody and sweary as it appears, I wonder if it's simply the kind of divisive play that won't appeal to everyone.
It'll be a shame if it's terrible, but I suppose it will make it easier to choose between getting tickets for this or Barbershop Chronicles...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 30, 2017 21:34:23 GMT
Not sure how much the plays announced appeal to me, but definitely excited by some of the music.
Max Richter's Four Seasons recomposition with a major puppet show sounds intriguing, and the Bjarne Eike and Barokksolistene 'ale + live music' night sounds like great fun.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 26, 2017 22:10:34 GMT
Hmm. Genuinely not sure if you're a teenager going through the 'I'm just brutally honest' edgy phase, or a satire account... And quite unclear why each single thought needs to be spread over short sentences ... ... and multiple comments. I have a problem with my peripheral Vision Well, (assuming that's true) it makes me a bit of an asshole for that part of my comment...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 26, 2017 21:31:06 GMT
Don't know what was worse This sh*t play Or the skank stinking of fags and beer sitting next to me Hmm. Genuinely not sure if you're a teenager going through the 'I'm just brutally honest' edgy phase, or a satire account... And quite unclear why each single thought needs to be spread over short sentences ... ... and multiple comments.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 25, 2017 10:55:04 GMT
This play looks intriguing but I have to say, the webpage is pretty indicative of something I find frustrating when deciding on new plays:
They give so little information about the play itself. There's no real synopsis or story outline, just a couple of vague sentences that don't really give much information on what the story is about at all. Plus then literally just a word on what type of play it is ('gripping'), and a single image.
I guess that these things are still in development when tickets go on sale, but some of these websites seem so vague as to be irrelevant, requiring audiences to base their decisions on prior knowledge about the people involved rather than the play itself: Do you know the star? Do you know the playwright? And so on.
I know that movies have arguably gone too far in terms of 'too much information' in trailers, but surely it's possible to give a little more information on what you want people to buy tickets for...
(I guess that this is probably less of an issue for some readers here, who are more seasoned theatre-goers than I am and have more experience interpreting these things, but anyway, that's my mini rant).
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 24, 2017 19:36:27 GMT
They designate a single performance of the opera as the "Undressed" performance - for that night, in addition to normal tickets you can buy an "Undressed" ticket for £20 which gets you your opera ticket, access to pre-performance talk and post-production drinks, plus they then set your account up with a discount for subsequent productions. It's aimed at people "new to opera" but when I did it I'd already booked for stuff at the ENO previously. The website says "If you’ve already seen an opera at ENO or previously attended an Undressed event, you are not eligible to register for this scheme" so maybe they have tightened up on this. Details here - www.eno.org/your-visit/ways-to-save-offers/opera-undressed/Register and you'll get a mail when the tickets can be booked, you need to be quick. They don't do it for all productions, and I'm surprised they're not doing it for the Philip Glass and Nico Muhly ones which I would have thought would be have more appeal to the younger audience this is aimed at. Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info, and responding so quickly. Sounds like a great idea, especially if ENO are struggling to get bums on seats. As you say though, it's strange that they aren't stricter about eligibility (especially since you'd assume any checks would be an automated, online process). The website seemed somewhat relaxed for sales too; public booking went live much earlier than 10am.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 24, 2017 19:11:14 GMT
Also worth looking at the "Opera Undressed" offer (which is just for specific nights of specific operas) And bear in mind that virtually everything at ENO ends up on TKTS generally for around £30 for stalls or dress circle seats. What's the Opera Undressed scheme? The website is pretty vague www.eno.org/your-visit/ways-to-save-offers/opera-undressed/and I'm unclear if this is simply access to cheap tickets for rehearsals, or one of those events which has pre/post performance talks...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 24, 2017 15:46:36 GMT
The Secret Seats are an absolute bargain. Go get em! So how do these work? Basically, 'secret seats' gives you cheaper prices on decent seats (£20 for seats 'worth' at least £30). They should be good seats, but if you book more than 2 seats then there's no guarantee that you'll be seated together: www.eno.org/your-visit/ways-to-save-offers/secret-seat/I am part of the Access All Arias program, but never can get tickets for anything. I'm not sure if it is something to do with my account or their website I give up I am intrigued by secret seats too, but they say the ticket value is guaranteed £30+ however a lot of the £30+ seats have no view of subtitles so you could get stuck with that.... All secret seats should have a view of the surtitles: www.eno.org/your-visit/ways-to-save-offers/secret-seat/
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 24, 2017 0:30:44 GMT
Public booking is supposed to not start until 10am, but it seems to be working already!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 16:02:06 GMT
It's funny that you talk about people being 'beyond contempt'. I feel the same way about the people who come out of the woodwork whenever there's a terrorist attack to revel in glee if the terrorist turns out to be Muslim. Totally agree but thankfully I'm not one of them...
Whoever commits such acts are barbaric regardless of their faith. My problem is with people putting their heads in the sand and pretending they don't know the cause.
Agreed. Your tone of smug sarcastic self-righteousness was nothing if not respectful and calm.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 15:54:21 GMT
Also we have no actual idea what the religion of the person was, just hearsay at moment I bet he's not Buddhist...
Let's not get carried away... oh hang on... Anyone who thinks a comparison to the IRA can be made are beyond my contempt. It's funny that you talk about people being 'beyond contempt'. I feel the same way about the people who come out of the woodwork whenever there's a terrorist attack to revel in glee if the terrorist turns out to be Muslim.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 15:22:40 GMT
It would be a lie if I said he was my favourite Bond but without-a-doubt this was my favourite pre-credits Bond scene growing up:
The hill. The music. And that parachute. Too cool.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 15:11:27 GMT
This is why anecdotal evidence, while emotionally powerful, isn't always very reliable. Furthermore, it's not often that easy to see the complexities going beneath the surface of other people; as the saying goes, we judge ourselves on our intentions, and others on their actions. The evidence is much more than anecdotal. And actually, kids being born in a family, being told there is a mighty god, who will judge you and says that homosexuality is wrong and that you have to do and not do certain things, in order to go to heaven, etc, is not exactly rocket science. It is the way any person is formed, and forming an allround human character happens with a different approach. You can throw gays off roofs and blow youself up all you like, but "because god says so" won't do for a reason. In any case, it won't make your mind human. Or evolved/developed, to say the least. Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye here. In my opinion, your continued suggestion that those who are strongly religious have somehow less "evolved/developed" minds than your superior atheist mind is a fairly unfortunate way of thinking about your fellow human beings. The idea that your views on the world are somehow more rational & 'true' because you aren't religious is not as simple as the caricature you have painted of the religious bigots and enlightened atheists; Firstly many of the things we are talking about aren't issues defined simply by objective facts, but they are value judgements defined by many things beyond religion. There are, after all, homophobic people who aren't religious. Secondly, your upbringing will be defined hugely by all aspects of your parents; your example might equally work talking about workers' rights and socialist parents, or football and Man Utd fan parents and on and on. Thirdly, studies show that people simply aren't all that rational anyway (Freakonomics did an episode about how people's views changed when presented with different facts). Within most aspects of human life there is the bell curve; amongst 'pro-life' a tiny number of people will blow up abortion clinics; within football fans a tiny number will beat up fans from other teams; within animal rights activism a tiny number will dig up human graves, and so on... Acting as though these ideas should be defined by the worst human actions is disingenuous and unfair on the vast majority who are nothing like this, just like suggesting that someone can be boiled down simply to the religion they believe in. Finally, as a clear example of not wanting parts of your identity to be defined by those so different from yourself; I would hate for other people's views on atheists to be defined by your posts here today. I dare say you would think the same way about my posts.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on May 23, 2017 13:53:32 GMT
Reducing people down to being defined simply by their religion ignores the complex relationship that most people have with their religion. You say "If they think they are doing things for a god, there is zero responsibility and reasoning possible." as though religious people can't be conflicted about how they behave, and make sweeping generalisations that cover billions of people. You actually confirm my point. I have spoken to many religious people in my life and I found that there is no discussion possible. "Being gay (or live like it)" is a good example. It is considered as wrong, per definition, based on nothing. When I ask what is behind that thought, I have never gotten an explanation other than "this book says so" or "my god says so". Therefore they are saying "My view on life and subjects is defined by religion". I just agree with them that that is, unfortunately, true. Unfortunately, while each of our personal experiences of dealing with religious people might be significant in defining *our* views, it might not actually be a fair representation of how religious people as a whole behave. This is why anecdotal evidence, while emotionally powerful, isn't always very reliable. Furthermore, it's not often that easy to see the complexities going beneath the surface of other people; as the saying goes, we judge ourselves on our intentions, and others on their actions. I dare say that if you've chatted about belief with religious people in as abrasive/condescending a manner as you've done here, they might not have been as forthcoming about their views, or as open to yours as you might have liked.
|
|